Simple method to transmit thoughts that always works.

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by kwhilborn, Feb 28, 2007.

  1. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    This only holds if you start with the a priori assumption that telepathy exists.
    Otherwise, according to your statement, the fact that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of, say, Russell's celestial teapot, or an inivisible pink unicorn, is merely stating that science is not equipped to find it. Of course, one could merely be rational and not assume that it actually exists in the first place.

    But hey, let's assume everything exists and it is the weakness of science that there is no scientific evidence.

    So what method of establishing evidence would you prefer to use?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    If you agree that all substances are connected by some immaterial mechanism, what else would you call that relationship ? Telepathic, entanglement, what?
    Science has already established that all things are connected by means that would have to be considered as immaterial. Do you dispute the constancy of gravity, Quantum Entanglement etc?
    Well..... the thought comes to mind, to compare the evidential requirements for, say, a murder trial in the supreme courts, judicial evidence as opposed to "scientific". The judiciary being a more appropriate place to hear evidence than a biased scientific peer review panel.

    There are major distinctions in the way evidence is looked at by both review systems. Ideally there is no presumption of either "existence" nor "non-existence" and just deal with the evidence as provided.
    In most cases any evidence of telepathic communication as described in the video provided earlier, for example, is immediately discounted as nonsense, even though if a "candid" survey of the worlds population was undertaken you would find probably in excess of 80% of all adults having experienced this pheno in some form. You will also note how the video is related to the OP topic. If a court is presented with the statistics of over 80% population experience what would it's verdict be regarding the value of that evidence?

    The court system is only interested in being convinced that an event has occurred and not that it is repeatable or predictable where as science has the requirement of predictability and repeatability.
    As stated earlier the requirement of predictability and repeatability being placed on the human condition is ridiculously inadequate, given the self inspired and free willed nature of the beast so to speak.
    Last edited: May 2, 2013
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    I dispute that such things have to be considered as immaterial. It is an irrational leap to jump from "unknown mechanism" to "immaterial mechanism".

    If it was anything more than concluding that 80% of the population have had an experience that they have interpreted as X, then they would be basing it on insufficient and inadequate information, on logical fallacies and pandering to the masses. To try and use those statistics as evidence for anything other than peoples' interpretation then the verdict would be to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence.
    Not if the claim is merely that an event has occurred.
    The requirement for repeatability would be needed in establishing the actual cause of the event, and the mechanism of the event.
    Science does not work on weight of numbers or a weight of evidence to define the truth. At best it will define an acceptable theory until new evidence comes along.
    The judiciary system guesses - it fills in the blanks and asks people to believe a verdict based on the guesswork.
    Science doesn't - it says "I don't know" when it doesn't know. It then says "but these are possible causes..." without necessarily concluding on which is truth.
    The judicial system saying something is truth does not make it so... it merely means that some people believe it so... based on a weight of evidence. And therein lies its weakness when trying to push back the boundaries of our knowledge.
    In science one data point can disprove a theory. In the judicial system that one point is weighed against the rest... and might be lost.
    It is only inadequate if you want to believe in something and you find science is unable to prove that it is as you want it to be.
    Science does not discount the occurrence of a single event - but it will require more than anecdote and popular belief if you want to claim a mechanism behind that event as truth rather than merely as an hypothesis... irrespective of whether it involves the human condition or not.
    Even more so if someone claims a method is foolproof but is unable to back up what they say.

    Noone disputes that some people have experiences that they interpret as telepathy.
    But this is not proof or even evidence of telepathy itself - only of the underlying experience (whatever its cause) and of the interpretation (for whatever reason).
    Even if 80% of the population claimed the same experience and the same interpretation, it still doesn't mean that it is as interpreted.
    And science seeks to know what it truly is, not merely what people interpret it as.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    If you have to astral bodies , eg. planets about 10 lys apart in a vacuum or void of space and there is no material way that they can be connected [thus sharing the exact same constancy/invariance], as per scientific knowledge of today how can you claim that that connection must be material? I am not deliberately trying to be silly with this. For example is Gravity deemed a material substance or mechanism by yourself or is it something else?

    If gravity was eventually found by science to be "dimensional collapse" of 4 dim to zero, is this a material event or an immaterial event according to you?

    If people and all substances were connected by a zero dimensional "bridge" would that be considered as a material bridge or immaterial bridge?

    Well most people experience "love" for example and that can not be evidenced by the scientific method yet observed in action every day.
    Does your reasoning apply like wise as it does for telepathy? Why would you treat "love" as separate to telepathy? Why is the immaterial love phenomena not subject to the same skepticism that telepathy is?
  8. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I'll give you another example of limitations of the scientific attitude and method.
    In the extreme weather on unpredictable occasions around the world today there is witness testimonial evidence that hyper intense wind or gust centers are occurring causing "micro tornado type vortex effects that can be localized to a diameter of less than 20 meters with a wind velocity peaking in excess of 200 kph [ based on damage done only]. lasting approximately 15 seconds.
    One such event MAY HAVE occurred here in Melbourne, Australia knocking over a high brick wall tragically killing 3 pedestrians.

    Others MAY have occurred else where....
    How could this pheno, if it exists, be tested for and by science.
    It appears to be "random" and unpredictable, by mechanisms unknown. It can only be recorded in hindsight or anecdotal. If one was impossibly lucky enough to have the instruments necessary, set up at the time and recorded only one event in detail, how would that data be received by science when it would be effectively impossible to repeat.

    The issue is how science deals with seemingly spontaneous and unpredictable events.
  9. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    While we might not know the mechanism, it is irrational to jump from such lack of knowledge to proclamations of it being a non-material cause.
    "Not knowing how it works, given our current understanding of matter" does not equate to "non-material".
    And yes, gravity is deemed part of the material realm.
    No idea. You'd have to expand on what you meant.
    First define what love is, then we can play ball. If you are unable to define it then who is to say what it even is, or whether what any of us experience is even the same thing.
    So define it first, please.
    Define telepathy, then we can examine it further. And I do not consider love to be immaterial, but very much driven and part of the material realm.
    The same way that rogue waves were tested for and by science.
    Do we have the means to test for the tornadoes at present? No idea.
    Does science say that they are not possible? No. Bad scientists may. And eventually they may be able to test and prove such things are possible - even if initially through computer modelling.
    So I fail to see the point here.
    Through modelling, through experimentation to establish whether the theorised mechanisms are possible, given our current understanding.
    But at no point would they say that it is impossible unless all possible mechanisms are logically rejected.
    It does so without jumping to conclusions of the truth of any mechanism involved.
    Science is more than willing to say "I don't know... yet" while more testing is done, more evidence is found.
    It sets up theories that remain such while more data is sought. If none, or insufficient, is found then it remains a theory. What you are asking for is to accept something as true without the necessary examination or evidence supporting the mechanism.

    You seem unwilling to say or accept "I don't know".
  10. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I think the key here is more about defining "material" than anything else...
  11. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Not at all.
    You need to define what you want to understand before you can even begin to discuss the nature of the mechanism behind it.
    Moving the onus on to definitions of what is material or not is a red-herring - as the mechanism will be the mechanism regardless of whether we call it material or not.
    But until you define what it is you want to examine then there is nothing but a blank piece of paper on which to hang any claim of a non-material mechanism.
  12. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    I do not believe that any agreement is possible whether that be definitions, object of discussion nor methodology of process.
    I have I feel clearly stated that a different approach to this subject of psychic/telepathic communication may yield productive results.
    I have already stated that the nature of freewill of self animated objects disallows scientific inquiry using the scientific method. You have chosen as is your unpredictable right to ignore what I have already stated. Science can not claim either it exists or non-exists as a phenomena. However any person who has had psychic experience CAN legitimately claim it exists regardless of what science says that it can't assess or quantify. Which I might add may be the main reason why typically some online forums are plagued with these sort of questions and receive the same typical "dribble" from science.

    Until a proper approach is worked out that allows for the unpredictability and non repeatability of any self animated willed object no head-way will be made.

    A mechanism exists that can allow such communication as I have already stated. Science already has shown this to be "Fact" every time it refers to universality of laws and constants of gravity and inertia.
    The exact nature of the mechanism may not be known to science but the sheer fact that the entire universe appears to be entangled to provide those constants [including invariance] provides a clue as to how two or more independent bodies of mass can communicate regardless of distance of separation.[Whether those masses be human minds, hearts or pencils sitting on your desk is actually irrelevant at this juncture.]

    Are you able to accept that the mass of your brain is in a communicative relationship with the mass of my brain? Or are you going to say that your brain is somehow aloof to the laws of this universe as stated by science's use of universal constancy and universal application of the laws of physics?
    Note : I am not talking about utility or even usefulness of that communication. I am simply referring to the fact that your brain and mine is in a communicative relationship as described by the laws of physics.
    Do I need to simplify my proposition any better than I already have?
    What definitions do you need?
    What are the weaknesses of my proposition?
  13. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Which begs the question why you bother discussing it?
    You have stated - but stating doesn't make it so.
    For which you are wrong: the scientific method remains applicable to human actions - and if something is not repeatable then no conclusion can be drawn, regardless of personal or individual interpretation.
    It's actually quite predictable that I ignore claims that have no substantiation.
    Yes - people can and do make all sorts of claims.
    If you don't like the "dribble" you get from science then stop posting the drivel in the first place.
    And then answer me how a claimed "foolproof" methodology should not be open to scientific enquiry and rigour?
    Headway has been made despite claims unsupported by science, and lo and behold we have things such as medicine, as technology, and we are not governed by superstition.
    But yes, anyone can claim anything they want - and if they get enough people to believe them they could even make a living out of it... heck, even a religion!
    So you claim such things are unable to be assessed by science, yet you want to quote science as providing explanation?
    Unsurprisingly the things you refer to can be demonstrated repeatedly.
    If you want to argue that the same things are behind the mechanism of "telepathy" - that you can pass information via such things - then you need to demonstrate it or just have it considered a theory, or even just the unscientific hypothesis that it is. But don't expect any credence in what you claim.
    I think you are being rather liberal in your usage of the term "communicative".
    I would not say that our brains are in a communicative relationship. They certainly obey the same laws - but that does not mean that the matter of your brain communicates with mine in any way. I obey the laws of my country, as do many other people who I have never communicated with - just to give an analogy.
    Universal constancy and application of laws does not necessitate communication between matter.
    You seem to feel that the laws of physics prove or require this... but you're going to have to expand on that.

    Secondly, you are relying on a dumb process and extrapolating it as evidence for an intelligent one - where actually useful information is communicated. This is another flaw.

    Thirdly, you general approach is to quote science as supporting your hypothesis, and yet arguing at the same time that your hypothesis is outside the scope of science. All you are therefore asking people to do is accept you on your word... because you say so... which is nothing but faith.

    Telepathy has never been adequately demonstrated. Ever.
    And yet you fail to address the simple matter in this thread that the OP describes a methodology that "always works" - that is open to scientific enquiry - yet dismisses every failure as being "impossible".

    Believe in it if you want.
    Take peoples' interpretation of what they experienced at face value if you want.
    Just don't expect rational people to accept it as truth, as anything other than unsubstantiated claims.
  14. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Because agreement whilst nice is totally unnecessary and I like to see repeatability and predictability in peoples responses, and your response is entirely predictable. Maybe it is some sort of perverse ego satisfaction that when confronted with clear rational concepts all that can be returned as a response is a distortion of the intent and a strong desire to avoid the issues presented.
    I have clearly stated that all things must be in a communicative relationship as described by the existence of universal constants of Gravity and the fact that the Laws of Physics appear to be universal in application.
    It is all very well for science to proclaim that the laws of physics are universal and not provide a mechanism for such a thing and expect others to believe them.
    and who pray tell is suggesting that it does?
    The scientific method can not assess that which is unpredictable and subject to unrepeatability. simple really!
    The scientific method is not capable of assessing human behavior in a way that provides conclusive outcomes.

    oh there is plenty of substantiation to the effect that the scientific method is strictly limited to the realms of non-animated objects or where it chooses it exclude the nature of freewill.
    Agrees If one wishes to prove something according to the scientific method then one must accept the outcome. The thread OP attempts to do just this as is doomed to failure accordingly.
    That is to say, failure to satisfy the scientific method with all it's limitations.

    I only claim that due to the lack of understanding by science for the very mechanism that it relies upon to premise it's science, it is currently unqualified to make any assessment regarding the inter-relationships between all things.
    Unqualified does not mean "stupid" nor does it mean that it is seriously lacking in "nouse".. It just means that it is unqualified to make an assessment that is outside it's domain of understanding.
    People are saying that : "they are connected somehow with each other"
    Science is saying that the universe's content is connected somehow .... so what's the problem?

    The people and science actually agree... we are all somehow connected.
    The only problem is that science doesn't know "what" mechanism this connection is facilitated by. Yet connected we all are.
  15. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Then I suggest you refrain from such distortion and avoidance.
    Universal in application does not mean that there "must be" a communicative relationship.
    Two things spun of the same cloth are not in a communicative relationship despite displaying the same properties.
    Universal application merely says that there is consistency... not communication.
    Until you can explain your claim, rather than merely restate it ad nauseam as a "must", there is nothing to really discuss.
    It is all very well for science to proclaim that the laws of physics are universal and not provide a mechanism for such a thing and expect others to believe them.
    You, in the very quote that I responded to:
    "I have I feel clearly stated that a different approach to this subject of psychic/telepathic communication may yield productive results."
    I responded that merely stating it does not make it so (i.e. that it does not mean that it may yield productive results).
    Yes, it can/is. You are confusing the method with the ability to conclude as (scientific) fact.
    You are again confusing the scientific method with merely the current understanding that it has helped provide us.
    The rest is merely drivel that tries to excuse certain claims from rational inquiry, in an attempt to provide justification for the claim... very much along the lines of "you can't prove it false therefore I am justified in believing it!"
    The problem is like someone saying that because they can lift a grain of sand that they can lift a mountain... it is a category fallacy.
    And it is also a fallacy of equivocation... science's view of being connected is different to what lay-people consider it to be.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    true except when considering the vast and effective infinite nature of the application of those constants.

    Knowing as you do that the universe consists of an effective infinite number of individual particles, all sharing the "exact" same constants, I fail to see how you can rationalize that there needs not be any communicative relationship. [The human body/brain** IS also part of that universe too I might add]

    How do you believe absolute constancy can be achieved in a 4D universe of infinite diversity? [if not by some means that IS communicative]
    Seriously I would really like to know/understand the ration-al you are using to avoid what appears to me to be obvious.

    Maybe you just don't like the novelty of this approach?
    There is an old saying regarding the definition of insanity: "Insanity is revealed when someone repeats the same failed approach and expects change to occur." or something to that effect.
    I am and never have been interested in repeating someone else's failed approaches. The typical approach to this subject goes no where.

    I have not read any where on the net anyone who has approached this subject in the way I am.
    Pychic interconnectedness to me is no different to what connects the universe generally. [universal constants] We, as self animated beings have a limited capacity to utilize this connection in ways that at present are unpredictable and not deliberately repeatable [as a rule]. [instinctive reactive] therefore psychic connectivity is unable to fall under the jurisdiction of the scientific method , as it stands.

    When science has developed a method for scientifically determining unpredictable, instinctive and non-repeatable events as credible, then and only then will science be qualified to make an assessment. IMO
    Until then we have to rely on the verbal testimony/evidence that is presented. [Some of which but not all of which, could be considered as embellished, fabricated to some extent and down right fraudulent.] Such is the nature of the human ego!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Last edited: May 19, 2013
  17. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    No - that is merely special pleading.
    First, who says that the universe consists of a number of individual particles, infinite or otherwise?
    Secondly, you confuse a shared cause with communication. Communication implies a causal relationship... but two particles merely having a shared cause (i.e. their actions both caused by the same "parent") does not mean that there is communication between the particles.
    First, it is not known that the universe is infinite. Why do you make that assumption?
    Second - the constancy is a property of the universe - not itself a causal mechanism for communication between particles. The constancy of the Law of Gravity, for example, does not mean that all particles communicate - it means that they were all cut from the same cloth and imparted with the same properties. There is no implication of communication between them.
    Novelty is great, but it has to be more than just unsubstantiated claims.
    Being novel does not make it true, or valid, or rational, or anything other than belief on your part.
    You have shown no substantiation of your claims other than mere claims - and any tests that have been performed, when viewed at the meta level, are no different to the background noise. Yet you try again and again to excuse the lack of substantiation by saying that such things are beyond / unable to be substantiated - yet still you want others to consider your claims as anything other than unsubstantiated.
    And all that does is enable you to believe what you want for whatever reason you want, and to discount anything that you don't want to accept.

    So please do not try to peddle such things other than as the unsubstantiated claims they are.
  18. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    What claims are you referring to, exactly?
    quote them please.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Since when is stating "vagaries" the making of a claim?
    ie. "effective infinite nature"
    etc etc...
    The only claims I am prepared to make at this juncture are :
    • That due to the lack of understanding by science for the very mechanism that it relies upon to premise it's science, it is currently unqualified to make any assessment regarding the "common" inter-relationship between ALL things.
    • All things are in a communicative relationship [Communicative in the vain described by quantum entanglement ]
    • Science is not qualified to assess events that are unpredictable and unrepeatable. [that are of unknown causation]
    and I might add all the above "claims" are part of a "speculative discussion" and certainly not intended to be considered as a white paper or any such nonsense that you seem to think that they are as your defense/ridicule suggests ...etc etc.
    Last edited: May 19, 2013
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    The ones including those you reiterate above.
    Add to that the implied claim that constancy of properties implies a communicative relationship.
    A claim does not have to be along the syntax of "X induces Y".
    Saying that "X may induce Y" is still a claim - it is more open to the possibility of being wrong, but it is still a claim.
    And unless you can substantiate it, all you are saying is that "I can't disprove it... therefore it may be correct".
    Such claims remain unsubstantiated other than through the lack of disproof.
    Yet none of those claims are substantiated.
    Science is indeed qualified to make assessments regarding relationships. It does so through repeatability, testability etc. It's called the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it?
    You claim that things are in a communicative relationship - and other than making a hand-wave to quantum entanglement (which is a rather specific case) you have no substantiation for such other than reference to constancy of properties and a belief that this somehow obviously leads to the conclusion of a communicative relationship. I.e. you say it, but you don't support it.
    And yes, science is qualified to assess events that are unpredictable and unrepeatable. One merely has to understand exactly what one is looking for, set up tests for the principles with which to make theories, hypotheses that allow for repeatability, and through which the unpredictability can be captured through probability etc.
    Instead you jump on something akin to "You can't disprove it!" as some means of support.
    I.e. you jump on a perceived weakness of science, you then try to put your claims squarely within the perceived weak-spot - and that is your only rationale for accepting the claim... other than a predisposition to believe it.

    You want to believe it... that's fine... feel free to.
    Just don't peddle it as something more substantiated than it is, or anything more rational than it is.
  20. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Of course all claims are unsubstantiated. We have yet to get to the point in this discussion where proper communication is possible.

    Your main counter argument/claim appears to be to suggest that all things spring independently from the same source yet you also fail to substantiate that claim.
    The so called proven reality of cosmic expansion, time dilation (G & RV**), length contraction [ aka SRT ] etc works strongly against you irrational notion of all things being independently unique, with out an ongoing and continuous commonly shared source.

    How can length contraction or time dilation be achieved in a uniform and predictable fashion with out a fundamental dependency being involved? The same question applies to cosmic metric expansion/contraction.

    You are by default refuting Special relativity Theory and cosmic expansion with your claim, are you not?

    Possibly you are referring to the subject-ivistic nightmare of some form of ego centric heliocentric-ism? [organized chaos]
    Where as I am referring to an objective paradise, [organized order]

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The subjectivist says to the objectivist: "The universal constants are subjectively 100% constant" [chuckle]
    or something equally nonsensical like "It is objectively true that nothing can be objectively true"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The other thing that seriously needs to be considered is that we are discussing "absolute exactness" and not approximate exactness. For all things to have "absolutely exact" constancy, such as the speed of light invariance and invariance of gravity it is easy to state that this constancy can ONLY be achieved by something that is constantly (in an "absolute fashion") able to maintain that "Exactness".
    Suffice to say that the constancy of gravity for example is not open to probability other than to say 100% probable.

    To think other wise would be to revert those universal constants to the realm of probability [subjectivity] rather than "exactness".

    In my opinion this is the greatest issue with science's quest for the Higgs Bosun as they are looking for something that can only impart a variable effect [non-exact] therefore even if they discovered the Higgs bosun they would still need to look deeper to find what they actually are looking for.

    **gravitational and Relativistic
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Not all claims are unsubstantiated. Yours are, though.

    Don’t you think the Big Bang has rather a lot of substantiation behind it?

    And it is not that they “spring independently from the same source” – but merely that they are caused by exactly the same thing and are imparted with the same properties… i.e. it is rational to conclude that it is the consistency of that source that dictates the constancy of the properties observed, not subsequent communication between elements within.

    It in no way “works strongly against” me. Once a law is established (not in terms of us discovering it but its actual creation/implementation) there is no communication between the elements and the law… the law is instilled within the particles, in the way it acts/reacts to a given action/cause. It is not communicating and asking how it should react... it does so because the law is in place and it can do nothing but obey that law.

    Imagine a room full of robotic mice, each being given exactly the same instruction set / laws. You would have it that each mouse is communicating with each other, and that their consistency of reaction is due to that communication. This is unsubstantiated.

    I say it is more rational (Occam’s razor etc) that those mice have a consistency of creation that instilled within them the laws by which they react/act – and that there need be no communication at all unless some actual physical/material interaction takes place.

    My claim is that this is the more rational position – that every element of the universe does not communicate as you suggest but merely acts/reacts according to the laws in place, and that there does not need to be “communication” for each aspect of the universe to behave according to those laws.

    At best one could argue that each individual bit of matter reacts (and I still would not use the term "communicate" here) with the substrate in which it acts - but not necessarily with the other bits of matter.
    Dependency does not imply communication… merely on consistent causation and obeyance/adherence to its properties. You have failed to show how such implies communication, despite repeating it again and again, regardless of how “obvious” you may consider it.


    No, I am not referring to that.

    But that maintaining need not be due to communication, but merely through identical inherent properties, with such consistency being through consistent source/creation/cause.

    Because every element of the universe obeys laws that are consistent. There need not be communication between everything, although with regard gravity there clearly is a relationship. But it is not “communication” in any recognised semantic sense.

    Not at all.

    You simply have yet to substantiate how constancy equates in any way to the necessity for communication.

    Not sure why you’ve shifted the discussion to the Higgs Boson (FYI a “bosun” is a shortened form of boatswain, a ship’s Warrant Officer, for example).

    And there is no issue with science in this regard. Reality is whatever it is, by definition, and every closer look at that reality just begs the question of what it is made of… it is a quest to the infinite, and thus unachievable.

    But nothing comes closer.

    All other investigations are more limited by the subjective, or at worse remain unsubstantiated.
  22. Lakon Valued Senior Member

    Who or what then, is more capable to better qualify it ?
  23. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Knowing the nature of what you are trying to qualify or assess would be a good start.
    Most people who have had psychic experiences have also experienced the effect it has on ego. Typically they will then make wild claims about deliberate and culpable control of certain abilities. However those abilities IMO are not able to be utilized by deliberate volition adequately enough to prove anything of substance to the scientific fraternity. Their claims to deliberate and testable abilities in no way diminish the reality of their experience except only the issue of culpability and deliberateness.

    As I suggested to one very ill person years ago:

    "You are only experiencing and amplified awareness of psychic effects that every one normally takes for granted"

    Being conned by your own ego is very common and easily achieved.

    So IMO the only field that has any where near the capacity to assess these things is the field of Behavioral Sciences, which unfortunately is hamstrung by the fact that according to current medical opinion any and all psychic experience(s) is psychotic/hallucinogenic in nature. [ even if shared with others ]

    IMO, until science approaches this issue allowing for the unpredictable and non repeatable "at will" nature of the beast, there is no field capable of assessing it adequately.
    The OP has stated categorically that the method described always works. These sorts of claims destroy any credibility as it is easy to realize that the claim is terribly flawed.
    I personally accept with out doubt, that the capacity of people to communicate in a way that is commonly referred to as psychic is valid, however I also accept that it is not able to be performed in a deliberate, repeatable, predictable and culpable fashion. [However the persons ego and God complex ambitions drive them to believe that they can hence the problem with such claims of grandeur.]


    You have over 20 million schizophrenics [NPD's] all complaining about "broadcasting their thoughts"

    Have you ever asked "Why is it that they all share the same symptomatic experiences?"
    The same question can be asked for all DSM rated issues...

Share This Page